Explanation

[JR12]

Interference call leads to confusion in Nats-Crew game | brewers.com: News

[soundedlikeastrike]

U2 stayed right with it, so "he saw" and called INT, rung up both, so was thinking intentional.

Not sure why he caved into non-intentional.

Though he should have been signaling Time right away, he never did.

I believe he'd of gotten two, had he killed adamantly.

We'll never know how much of the contact he saw compared to slo-mo, but R1 did push the glove arm back and do a little grabbing.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by soundedlikeastrike

U2 stayed right with it, so "he saw" and called INT, rung up both, so was thinking intentional.

Not sure why he caved into non-intentional.

Though he should have been signaling Time right away, he never did.

I believe he'd of gotten two, had he killed adamantly.

We'll never know how much of the contact he saw compared to slo-mo, but R1 did push the glove arm back and do a little grabbing.

Even if intentional, the intent was not to break up a (non-existent) double play, but to avoid the out at first.

Proper call.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Matt

Even if intentional, the intent was not to break up a (non-existent) double play, but to avoid the out at first.

Proper call.

Agree. Spann was safe at second, so what DP was he trying to break up? I think U2 wanted to invoke that ruling, but then realized the error of his ways when he was reminded that R1 was safe.

[soundedlikeastrike]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Agree. Spann was safe at second, so what DP was he trying to break up? I think U2 wanted to invoke that ruling, but then realized the error of his ways when he was reminded that R1 was safe.

That would be a perfect reason to cave...

[JJ]

Hmmm. I thought we weren't supposed to judge intentional or unintentional...it's either interference or not. It's one thing to say "He's out for interfering" and another to say "..but because it's unintentional the other guy is safe".
This wouldn't happen in NCAA - it would be a FPSR infraction and a double play.

JJ

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by JJ

Hmmm. I thought we weren't supposed to judge intentional or unintentional...

JJ

To call a DP in OBR the interference must be with an attempt to field a batted ball and be judged a "willful and deliberate" attempt to break up a DP.

Wasn't a batted ball.

No DP possible to break up

[echohotel]

Runner out at 2nd on interference. Ball is dead on the interference. No play can be made on batter/runner, award him first. My thoughts.

[bwburke94]

OBR 7.08(b) Comment states that intentional interference with a thrown ball by a runner touching a base is a DP, both the interfering runner and the batter-runner are out.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by bwburke94

OBR 7.08(b) Comment states that intentional interference with a thrown ball by a runner touching a base is a DP, both the interfering runner and the batter-runner are out.

No, it doesn't. It says that about a batted ball. The purpose is to allow a runner to stay on the base even if he allows the batted ball or fielder making a play to make contact with him.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by bwburke94

OBR 7.08(b) Comment states that intentional interference with a thrown ball by a runner touching a base is a DP, both the interfering runner and the batter-runner are out.

You are taking the Comment out of context. It says:

A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not.
If, however, the runner has contact with a legally occupied base when he hinders the fielder, he shall not be called out unless, in the umpire’s judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on fair or foul territory, is intentional. If the umpire declares the hindrance intentional, the following penalty shall apply: With less than two out, the umpire shall declare both the runner and batter out. With two out, the umpire shall declare the batter out.

It only refers to a batted ball, not a thrown ball.

[Robert E. Harrison]

If you have interference at the plate by the batter on a pitched ball and the catcher still throws out a runner stealing you ignore the interference by the batter. Why isn't similar logic here? Because the ball is dead immediately upon the offensive interference?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Robert E. Harrison

If you have interference at the plate by the batter on a pitched ball and the catcher still throws out a runner stealing you ignore the interference by the batter. Why isn't similar logic here? Because the ball is dead immediately upon the offensive interference?

Asked and answered.